I think I need to adress this statement-"I think your reply confirms the idea that people sort facts according to their loyalties, or world view, or something".

Certainly today I see things through a lens colored by what I have learned-we all do. But this is not true of the start of my journey. I looked at what the scientists that concluded that the warming was human driven (Anthropogenic Global Warming-AGW) including plenty from NASA, and I looked at the work of those scientists who concluded that the primary causes were natural cycles (I listed jsut a few in an earlier post). I still look at both of their arguements. I also read what they said about each other, and read their commentaries on each others conclusions. My primary worldview, Christianity, does not give any guidance in this question except to seek truth and wisdom. I did not have a "dog in the hunt".

My current position, and no scientific position can ever really be more than a "current position", is the result of this comparison.

I must ask at this point, have you really researched both points of view? As you state " Personally, I take NASA as my basic source of information." NASA is firmly in the AGW camp and the information you recieve there will carry that viewpoint. SkepticalScience is likewise a AGW site.

It appears to me at this point that you are more likely the one with a filter that is influencing what you will look at. Perhaps I am wrong but you do seem to be rather unfamiliar with the opposing views ("all your write seems contrary to what I have dug up"). I am very familiar with the positions and sources you are presenting. Consider whether you are simply relying too heavily on a source that you feel is athoritative (in logic that is an ad verecundium -appeal to authority- fallacy).

Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT, I believe) has for decades been a critic of the AGW hypothesis, as have Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. John Christie (UAH, maintain the global sattelite temp data set) and Cananda's Dr. Timothy Ball. These are just a few of the many scientist that dispute this theory (in spite of the media narrative that pritends they don't exist).

I also do not think this is a matter of "sorting facts", by and large the facts are not in dispute, it is the interpretation of them. Perhaps "interpretation" was the word you needed.

There does not seem to be any dispute that the earth warmed from the mid 70's to late 90's by either camp. Only recently have the AGW camp accepted that the temp trend line has flattened over the last 15 years (yes I am up to date). But they have now, in general, accepted that this is a fact (they denied it for quite a while). Every data set for global temps indicates this.

The question in all of these issues is "Why?"

The AGW camp widely predicted that the twenty year increasing temp trend would continue unabated and would probalby accelerate. The last 15 years hae required a re-evaluation. they are calling it a "pause" and, as you noted, claiming that ocean heat cycles (absorbtion in this instance) is the reason. This is a bit disingenuous as they have for decades dismissed the ocean heat cycles as insignificant, and dominated by CO2 forcing.

On the other hand the"sceptics" of AGW predicted that the warming trend would abate. They saw global temps as following the ocean and solar cycles as it had correlated well with them in the warming-level-cooling cycle that occured over the first 75 years of the 20th century. (note this up-flat-down cycle occured while CO2 was on a constant up slope). Thus far the trend in the 21st century has confirmed their position. They have not needed to adjust their theories because the leveling of temperatures has been in accord with their predictions.

Currently I feel more confident in going with the team whose predictions are more accurate to date. It is certainly possible that warming will resume/accelerate and I will need to re-evaluate. I am willing to do that if this should happen.

What will you do if the temperatures cycle down?

Please don't go for "concensus". In science there is no such thing, a theory stands or falls on the strength of it's arguements and evidence, not how many people (even scientists) buy into it.

Though I have seen no-one making rash predictions (I currently think the AGW group is guilty of just that) there are many scientists concerned that the combination of the PDO and other oceanic cycles and the unexpectedly weak solar flare cycle (cycle 24) may indicate that a drop more severe than the 50's - 70's drop. Some are concerned that it has charteristics similar to the earlier Dalton and Maunder minima. Some are concerned cycle 25 will be very low. That would be rather nasty.

You're right, my mistake. Forgot to factor that a recharge is a daily routine. 180 miles on that overnight charge would work for my daily commute as it's a minimum 60 miles total, up to 80 or so on shopping days. Now to pay for that EV on a minimum wage income...

The "needs" that you listed are EXACTLY why "normal" people, in all and every EV survey are not willing to pay MORE for EV, and actually expect to pay LOT LESS for one, since they perceive the limitations as STEP DOWN from the ICE that are already used to, and quite satisfied with.

When people perceive they are getting LESS they are NOT willing to pay MORE !!!

Again EV proponents go out of their way to hide those results and than claim things like 92% of people would "consider" buying EV.

The fact that they would only "consider" it, if it was LOT LESS than ICE, never gets to be "published" - and in that respect nothing has changed for over 20 years !!!

There are only so many "tree huggers" that are willing to pay premium to drive EV.

It may be a surprise to many that the actual real life Engine Efficiency is ZERO for over 60% of vehicle lifetime for in City traffic use !

How is that poissible ?

Simply when the car stands still (red lights for example) the engine runs, and is theoretically 15 to 18% efficient at IDLE, but since you are not going anywhere, the final answer is ZERO miles per Gallon and ZERO efficiency, you just consume energy and get nothing in return (well if AC is on at leaast you can keep your cool).

Simple EV, uses ZERO energy when standing still, no matter for how long.

So IN CITY local and slow Traffic is where EV has GREAT advantage and can pay for itself if it is NEV (low speed vehicle), but there comes the catch again, you need "another" vehicle for long distance travel (or fast travel on highway at 70 MPH).

$8,000 NEV can over time pay for itself, but just barely - break even is more likely at $4.00 per gallon fuel cost.

$100,000 EV, which is equivalent in comfort and features to $40,000 ICE, will never pay for itself so every mile that you "save gas" is luxury that cost you 4 top 5 times more per mile than ICE.

(The touted EV performance advantage again in real life doe not matter that much people do not accelerate to 60 MPH in 4 seconds from red light on city streets, or if they do it is not for very long before they get "reckless driving" citation)

After all $60,000 even at $4.00 per gallon will buy enough gasoline for 25 MPG gas burner to travel over 375,000 miles !!!

Funny that no EV proponent that preaches the 2 cents per mile in Electric power cost ever mentions that fact !?

And no matter how good EV warranty you have they will not warranty the Battery for 375,000 miles or 20 years.....

Basically waht it means is that you pay for 100% SOC battery capacity, and you haul 100% of the weight with you all the time, but only use at best 60% (in reality it is 45% TO 55% BEFORE THE ENGINE STARTS).

If 100% would be used, then the car would have the same problems that some Leaf owners have and then have to argue with the OEM when the range per charge declines in 2 years or less.

This way GM can both warranty the battery for 7, 8 or 10 years (depending in which state the car is sold and if it is LEV or PZEV) and "mask" the gradual depletion of range.

When battery on Leaf will only get you 20 miles, you will not be happy, but when your engine on VOLT will start in 20 miles rather than 40, not too many people will notice.

Thank you also for pleasant tone. I think your reply confirms the idea that people sort facts according to their loyalties, or world view, or something, because all your write seems contrary to what I have dug up. Where do you get your information? Or has it just been a long time since you checked?

Personally, I take NASA as my basic source of information. I have seen a few other sites that seem truthful to my eye. Check out:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

I also mostly trust the skeptical science site, although there is a lot of confusing blogs following their articles.

You are absolutly right. Currently there is no substitute for petroleum for long distance travel. The Tesla model S comes closest with a 200+ mile range. But at terrible cost: $40,000 in batteries.

You could get a lot better range if you ran a nuclear engine. And it doesn't make CO2 except in the mining operation. Maybe you should try that if range is all that matters. :) Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

The problem is mother nature is charging 1/2% on all the fossil fuel burnings, and she will collect for 1000 years. She does it by warming the planet. Any responsible person would not buy gas if the vendor made this kind of deal.

Here is where we are headed: North Pole sea ice melts (very soon now). Then the north see whose temperature was held in check by the ice starts to rapidly heat up. Did you know that the north pole receives 30% more sun than the equator in the summer? It is those 24 hour days. The weather goes crazy. Droughts, Floods, Food shortages, water shortages, rising seas, polar methane release, mass migrations. riots. Faster and faster the problems mount. Civilization down the tubes.

Like you, I like my ICE car. Vroom Vroom. But, I would also like to die thinking I did not destroy the planet. So, I'm obliged to bite the bullet and go with EV. I think I might have to trade in my van for the RAV4 EV, because the model S is just not practical enough for me. But, I really prefer the van for hauling.

Some people will react differently. I can't control that. But, it just doesn't matter, it is myself that I have to be satisified with. I need to get off of grid power, and petroleum, and only use renewable energy. Hopefully the inconvience will not be too great a burden.

He obviously meant it took him 5 seconds to plug the car in. Not to charge it - that takes overnight.

But thanks for playing.

And I agree with hum. I worry about running out of gas a lot more than I worry about running out of juice. I've yet to meet an EV owner who has run out, but I know a couple of Prius owners who have. One was able to make it to a gas station on electric power, the other couldn't and had to be towed. It seems that the bladder in the gas tank renders make the gauge readings unreliable in some situations, to the ppoint where I've heard it referred to as the "fool gauge".

As it happens I'm writing this while sitting in my wif'e's Leaf in an IKEA underground lot. I'm here because I needed to charge. This morning I had a situation where I needed to get to an appointment and couldn't use my Tesla. The Leaf was the alternative, but it didn't have quite enough juice for there and back. No problem: Two minutes on my phone and I located a charger that would give me what I needed.

The only issue was for some reason IKEA doesn't turn on the chargers until the store opens, so I had to wait 5 minutes to charge.

And now I'm good to go, so I'll close by saying even when plans go awry there's often an alternative. Even in an EV.

Really interesting perspective on an important EV issue, Chuck. I can completely see the point of the EV engineer you talked to--a friend recently asked me if I knew how much fuel mileage my car got, and I honestly couldn't answer (a fact for which he scolded me!). I can see how EV skeptics or naysayers (or traditional automakers) could use "range anxiety) as a way to downplay interest in EVs or discourage people. However, on the other side, fuel range I guess isn't the same as EV range, as I can just go fill up if I think I'm running low. It is an issue for people interested in EVs to know how far they can get on a charged battery. So there are both sides to this issue, and I think you presented it very well.

Industrial workplaces are governed by OSHA rules, but this isn’t to say that rules are always followed. While injuries happen on production floors for a variety of reasons, of the top 10 OSHA rules that are most often ignored in industrial settings, two directly involve machine design: lockout/tagout procedures (LO/TO) and machine guarding.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.